It's time to come out of the high political blog with U.S. Senators and return to the prosaic world of education. I have described open source software and I have outlined a few reasons why schools have not turned to open source. Today, I want to give a few suggestions for altering the culture.

1. Use open source in your classroom: Nothing speaks louder than success. If your school won't let you install the software directly, tell your tech person you need it so you can work on your files both at home and at school. (It worked for me!)
2. Produce great things with your software. You will wow your audience.
3. Mention what you are using. Don't be a pest, but this is advertising. You can't advertise if you don't say anything.
4. Have CDs of the software available. I've converted several students to OpenOffice this way. Admittedly, most were looking for an improvement on Microsoft WordPad. That brings up the next one:
5. If people are happy with what they're using or comfortable with it, they won't wear down very quickly. Your Open Source software will feel like they've given something up unless you lay the groundwork first.
6. Let your tech people know about it. Some will be utterly opposed, but you may be able to get them to install it on computers at school as an alternative. Your foot will be in the door.
7. Be patient. You are trying to disrupt and entire culture. If you move too quickly, you will face a massive mutiny. I'm still not there in my school, but I've built up interest.

This is a battle worth fighting. Money not spent on software can be spent in other ways. It can be spent on other technology or on other needs that the school has. In the public schools, money can be raised by legalized theft (taxes). However, if you are in a private school, you depend on the free market. Open source software should hold a huge appeal.

It is a battle worth fighting in your own home. I bought the Microsoft Office Suite when I first bought my computer. Even though I got an educator's discount, that little disk cost more than the printer or the scanner. Since then, I have added high level typesetting software and high level photo manipulation software to my computer that has saved me thousands. The short version is that I'd never own that kind of software were it not for open source.

I'm doing more because of open source.

Normally I'm an education blogger. However, when a member of the US Senate speaks in my town, I can't pass up the opportunity to report on it. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) visited my town on Monday, August 4. He spent an hour interacting with the audience rather than giving a speech. I skipped an opportunity to hear John McCain on the same day speak in Sturgis, ND just to hear my own senator.

An American Success

I'm not one of Senator Dorgan's fans, but his life is an American success story. He grew up in Regent, North Dakota and graduated in a class of 9. It was a small town then, and even smaller now. He went on from there to join an exclusive club of 100 people: the U.S. Senate. As a boy, he did ordinary things like restore a Model T Ford. (OK, not so ordinary -- that takes skill and patience, but he did buy the car for $25.)

Though Dorgan is a Democrat, he is not an extremist like Democrats from other part of the country. Our friends in South Dakota illustrated what happens when politicians get too far away from the values of their constituents. Nevertheless, I find myself in disagreement with Dorgan on many issues.

Rather than report the Q&A format of the meeting, I'll group everything into broad categories. I'll try to represent generally what was asked and how Dorgan responded. I'll add my own editorial comments in italics like this.

Energy

A lot of this meeting was about energy. Many people were concerned about high oil prices. It all started with this question: "What's happening in Washington?" Dorgan responded well when he said, "Nothing."

The questions about oil continued. Some were concerned that speculators were driving up prices though they never actually dealt with the physical product. In fact, this question came up many times. Dorgan responded by noting that nothing in the past year justifies the doubling of oil prices. He placed the blame on speculators and suggested that speculation should be taken out of the picture. Then he noted that "we" were unable to get anything passed to change oil prices. Any legislation was blocked. If not blocked, it would be subject to veto.

Dorgan was careful to note, however, that it is important to be able to hedge risk. This suggests he may not be entirely opposed to speculation.

Dorgan is apparently a big fan of alternative energy. In response to some other questions, he suggested that North Dakota should require that 15% of its energy come from renewable sources. He noted that North Dakota is the Saudi Arabia of wind. Dorgan had a lot of faith in the future. He suggested that batteries will improve and that within 30-40 years, we will see hydrogen cars.

This led Dorgan to relate a story from his childhood. As a teenager, he restored a Model T ford that had been abandoned in an old granary near his family farm. Everything about the car was totally different from modern cars, except for one thing: it was still fueled in the exact same way.  This led him to suggest that government needed to play a bigger role in alternative fuels.

Fossil fuels have enjoyed federal tax incentives since 1916.  In contrast, incentives on renewable fuels have been only in fits and starts. He suggested that tax incentives should be more stable, and he suggested that they should be stretched out for 10 years at a time. While Dorgan has a point, I would ask why we're subsidizing any industry: oil, coal, or renewable.

One gentleman made quite a good point about fuel and taxes. He suggested that the government doesn't really want to see any alternative energy because they depend on the tax money that comes from fossil fuels. Dorgan agreed and noted that as efficiency of vehicles increased, the government would need to find other sources of funding. I agree with this. However, he then took it a step further and suggested that the car companies themselves don't want to see any changes. I could not see his logic here and he did not explain it. I could see why he'd believe this about oil companies, but I think all of our car companies have shown a willingness to experiment with hybrids, dual fuel, and other alternatives.

A final question that came up about energy was that North Dakota is actually an energy exporter. Any insistence on 15% renewable energy in the state would actually hurt our own state. Dorgan dismissed this suggestion, but then came up with an interesting idea: an interstate energy transmission system. He compared it to the interstate transportation system and suggested that it reduce our dependence on Saudi oil by 40-50%. (He cited T. Boone Pickens as a source.)

I'll admit that this is an interesting idea. I studied electricity in college as part of my Physics major and it's kind of scary how much energy gets lost in transmission. I also use the interstate highways when I travel large distances because they're fast. I like the idea of government keeping its snout out of private business, but I don't know if private industry would make the investment. I need to think about this issue more.

Dorgan concluded his energy remarks by responding to a question about environmental opposition. He noted that we will always need oil and that people need to do a better job at standing up to environmental groups. Then he reminded him that the energy companies like the way things are.

He's right. Too many people roll over every time environmentalists oppose something. Environmentalists have an advantage when they play the PR game. They get the frolicking bunnies and green fields. Industry has the factories. Nevertheless, I really do think that industry can make its case if it will just be more aggressive. People also like jobs and they rarely realize how clean most industries really are.

Health Care

Some people were concerned about health care. A law student noted that there are thousands of kids in North Dakota with no health insurance that half of her law school class had no health insurance. Dorgan responded by noting that health care for children has been vetoed twice.

He expanded on this by noting that sick children should be able to get health care. He was concerned that for some people, this care could only occur in the emergency room. Then, he expressed the hope that the new president would do something.

This was a frighteningly socialist beginning. However, he then made a few remarks that seemed slightly more freedom-oriented. Dorgan added that people will always want "fee for service" and choice. He suggested Health Savings Accounts because they would retain consumer choice. He added that these should not just be for the young and healthy. He concluded his remarks on health care by suggesting that we should move from  a "sick care" emphasis to a "prevention" emphasis. Health care is a lot cheaper when it catches problems earlier.

Trade

Trade is one of Byron Dorgan's pet topics. He even wrote a book on it a few years ago. At times he seemed to alternate between protectionism and free trade. Dorgan is quite concerned with our huge trade deficit. He noted that it could not continue as is because our trade policies are "incompetent."  Specifically, he said we need to stand up to countries that won't open up their markets.  If they won't open their markets to our products, we should block their products. A specific example he used was cars in South Korea.

Farming

Naturally, there were a number of farming questions. A lot of them overlapped the energy concerns. The rest concerned commodity prices and crop insurance. Dorgan reiterated his distaste for the speculators and noted that we have not yet had a successful farm policy.

I try not to bring it up much in conversation since I live in farm country. However, I wonder why the government needs much of a farm policy. It's time for some disruption to the farming industry. Even Dorgan was surprised to see a farmer who was in his thirties. That's because a real go-getter can't succeed in farming. If the feds would pull out of farming, a lot of farms would fail. The end result would be that the successful farmers would survive. This is such an emotional issue that people with my view are accused of wanting to destroy the family farm.

"Take Care of Me"

The last big category of questions that I heard were from people who were looking to the government to stick its snout into their lives and take care of them. To his credit, Dorgan responded to many of these questions with polite platitudes but no promise of action. After all, there are (or should be) limits on what the federal government can do.

One woman complained about oil companies causing damage to her ranch. She was extremely upset because 9 different locations had been damaged. Dorgan reminded her that she is already protected. If the oil companies are not compensating her for her damage, it was her job to do something about it. He suggested that she get a lawyer if they are not compensating her. The oil companies do cause damage to private property. Sometimes they get workers who just don't care. Usually they will fix or compensate if you call the office. They rely on the good will of landowners. Dorgan was exactly right. It's up to people to know their own rights.

Other people were concerned that fertilizer or other commodities farmers need are too expensive. Dorgan responded politely, but with no promise of action. He responded essentially the same way when someone else complained that they're not getting good wheat this year and the elevators won't buy it. It seems to me that government has no business setting prices. Because it controls prices in some parts of agriculture but not others, it puts farmers in a real bind. Getting government out of agriculture altogether would be best.

The final question made me almost embarrassed. One of our city council members complained that we need federal money to fix and repair our infrastructure: water, sewage, streets, etc. He said that federal money had helped us buid it in the first place 60 years ago. Dorgan actually put him in his place. He noted that the federal government has big problems. It's running a war and will not increase taxes to pay for things. Furthermore, it is operating under a huge deficit. He suggested appealing to the state of North Dakota which, in contrast, is running a huge budget surplus.

Then, Dorgan went onto a tangent about Iraq where we have 950 water projects and have spent $50 billion...while Iraq has raised $70 billion off its own oil. I guess it's clear where Dorgan stands on the Iraq war.

I don't see where it's a federal problem that my town of 1500 has old water pipes and a terrible sewage lagoon. If we need money, it is a state issue. However, we really need to look at our own priorities. Do we need a paved walking path? Do we need to build the Taj Mahal of parks? Do we need to expand the pool? Do we need to move the police out of city hall? I might go on, but as I live here, I start to question the city's priorities more and more. No one sees the water pipes, but they are an issue. We do smell the sewage lagoon. Fixing that would be a great benefit.

Final Comments

I was glad Dorgan came and I appreciate hearing what he thinks. I especially appreciate that he risked a Q&A format rather than simply giving a speech. However, like too many in government he sees government as the solution. Government has a role, but more often, it needs to simply get out of the way so that real people can come up with solutions in the messy private markets.